Ammo For Sale

« « For the children | Home | Trip confirmed; and fuck Delta airlines » »

When in doubt, make shit up

The LA Times editorial board is apparently about as smart as a box of rocks. And they molest children.

See, I have no facts to back up those assertions I just know they must be true. What? You mean that’s uncalled for? Kinda silly? Perhaps even libelous? You’re damn skippy it is. But that’s they way I would write stuff if I took a lesson from the LA Times editorial board, who in a piece ironically entitled Deadly, Intentional Ignorance on Guns, write:

TWO YEARS AGO THIS MONTH, the federal ban on assault weapons expired. Since then, sales of such weapons have almost certainly increased, and the number of crimes in which they have been used has undoubtedly risen. Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure. That’s because the public and law enforcement agencies no longer have access to information they could routinely get just a few years ago.

There’s plenty of ways to know. Try reading the newspaper. Or try doing some research. The facts are these weapons were used in a ridiculously low percentage of crimes before, during and now after the ban. Or, you know, you could just sit down and make stuff up, which is what the LA times did.

And the last sentence is a lie as well. Law enforcement still has access to gun information when the information is related directly to a crime. To be honest, I don’t know that the public ever had access to the information. And that information wouldn’t tell you how many previously banned weapons were used in crimes.

5 Responses to “When in doubt, make shit up”

  1. TXGunGeek Says:

    The FBI Uniform Crime Report publishes the data annually and spells out firearms use and what type was used when identifiable for a variety of violent crimes. Good source of FACTS not that the LA Times or any other bird cage liner checks for this. It’s even available over Al Gores invention.

  2. ben Says:

    you forgot to mention how the ban wasn’t really a ban in the first place, and couln’t possibly have made a difference. Escept maybe the phony ban tricked criminals into thinking there was a ban, and so they didn’t bother trying to get their hands on their former weapons of choice. Not a bad idea. Hmmm…

    Maybe we can trick the anti-gunners into thinking guns are banned. That would shut them up. Or not.

  3. markm Says:

    ben: “assault weapons” are semi-auto rifles with 16″ or longer barrels and certain features. No variety of gun with such a barrel has ever been popular with criminals. They feel too conspicuous walking around with one. Besides that, rifles are somewhat expensive, and most criminals aren’t making minimum wage.

  4. Gunstar1 Says:

    To be honest, I don’t know that the public ever had access to the information. And that information wouldn’t tell you how many previously banned weapons were used in crimes.

    A few years ago I did a bit of research into trace data and the first time I am aware the “public” got it was from a NAACP lawsuit against Gun Makers that was filed in NY. During discovery of that case they got the infamous 1996-2000 trace data on dealers from the ATF.

    When the lawsuit failed, the NAACP gave the trace data to Americans for Guns Safety (AGS). AGS then created the report “Selling Crime” which found that gun dealers located in 22 states supplied nearly 15% of guns recovered in crime between 1996 and 2000 and that most of the stores remain open for business, even those that committed repeated legal violations.

    Included in that report are a couple of dealers that are said to be the worst and the ATF have done nothing about. However a brief search of those 2 dealers on the internet revealed that they both had their FFL’s revoked before AGS’s “report” was even published.

    Anyway, the only times I am aware of where trace data has been given to the “public” was only for civil lawsuits against Gun Makers. Congress put a stop to giving out trace data to civil lawsuits.

    As you note, criminal cases have not been affected at all.

  5. ben Says:

    markm, of course I know that. I was just using the idiot anti-gunner’s lingo for fun and profit.